The District Sub-Registrar must provide reasons for refusal to register a document, as mandated by Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.

JUDGMENT :

Counsel for the petitioner, while pressing I.A. No. 6874 of 2022, submits that due to inadvertence, word “execute” has been typed instead of “register” at paragraph-1 and prayer portion of the said interlocutory application. He further submits that the designation of respondent no. 3 has also been wrongly typed in the cause title of the writ petition as “The Registrar, Chatra Registry Office” in place of “The District Sub-Registrar, Chatra”. He, accordingly, prays for making necessary correction at relevant place in I.A. No. 6874 of 2022 as well as in the cause title of the writ petition.

2. In view of the said prayer, counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in I.A. No. 6874 of 2022 as well as in the writ petition in course of the day.

3. I.A. No. 6874 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking amendment in paragraph-1 as well as in prayer portion of the writ petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the amendment as prayed by counsel for the petitioner is allowed. Let the amendment sought in I.A. No. 6874 of 2022 be treated as part of the writ petition.

5. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3 to register the sale-deed presented by the petitioner with respect to land appertaining to Khata No. 67, plot nos. 877 & 880, Thana No. 182, Ward/Halka No. 9, Mazua- Nagwan, Circle - Chatra, District- Chatra measuring an area of 05 decimals in favour of Smt. Sarita Devi wife of Shobhi Yadav.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner executed the sale-deed for the aforesaid land in favour of Smt. Sarita Devi wife of Shobhi Yadav. After completing all legal requirements under the Registration Act, 1908 (in short, “the Act, 1908”), the sale-deed was presented for registration before the respondent no. 3 on 04.03.2020, however, the said respondent without disclosing any reason, returned the said document. Aggrieved with the said action of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner represented the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Chatra (the respondent no.2), however no action was taken on the same which compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

7. Mr. Anoop Kumar Agarwal, learned A.C. to G.A.-IV appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that presently he has no instruction as to for what reason the sale-deed presented by the petitioner has not been registered by the respondent no. 3.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that she executed the aforesaid sale deed in favour of Smt. Sarita Devi wife of Sobhi Yadav on 21.12.2019. Subsequently, said sale-deed was presented before the respondent no. 3 by fulfilling the legal requirements on 04.03.2020, however, according to the petitioner, the sale-deed was not registered by the respondent no. 3, rather the same was returned to the petitioner without disclosing any reason. Here, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908, which reads as under:

“71. Reasons of refusal to register to be recorded.– (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.”

10. On bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would be evident that if the District Sub-Regi